Cricket has a bottomless pit of stats. The figures are mostly used to prove or disprove a point, padding a little logic. The pink-ball Test at Eden Gardens has generated a debate about atmosphere, playing conditions, batting and bowling under lights.
Importantly, whether tweaking the hours of play served the purpose for which the day-night Test was played? The response at Eden Gardens has vindicated BCCI president Sourav Ganguly’s belief that cricket under lights can resurrect the game.
Some sought to advance stats to prove that the pink ball would only be for fast bowlers and spinners would not have much of a say. Only one wicket went to a spinner in Kolkata and it was claimed not by
Ravichandran Ashwin or Ravindra Jadeja, but Bangladesh left-armer Taijul Islam who dismissed Ajinkya Rahane. But then Ashwin bowled just five overs in the second innings and Jadeja one in each innings.
Then the stats showed that the pink ball is not all about exaggerated swing. Australian off-spinner Nathan Lyon proved that he can extract something out in the air as well as off the pitch. But then Lyon knows the conditions in Adelaide. Not for nothing is Lyon considered the best offie alongside Ashwin. Stats show the Indian is far ahead of the Australian, although Lyon looked a cut above the Indian when the countries played Down Under.
Bangladesh apparently were not happy at playing the pink-ball Test with only four days of practice. Coach Russell Domingo stated that pink cannot replace the red-ball experience. He also said pink-ball Tests cannot be a norm. At the end, Bangladesh admitted they were up against the No 1 team.
Another offshoot of the Kolkata victory, which was the shortest Test in India going by the number of balls bowled, is the challenge thrown at Kohli by Australia captain Tim Paine, whether he would be willing to play under lights on their next tour which is part of the Test Championship. Paine is a brave man to have asked that despite knowing the present strength of the Indian pace attack.
The stats also surfaced when former India captain Sunil Gavaskar took exception to Kohli’s post-match remark that his team learnt from Ganguly how to stand up in international cricket and was carrying on what he started in the new millennium. Gavaskar sounded hurt and was curt.
“I know Dada is the BCCI president, so maybe Kohli wanted to say nice things about him. But India were also winning in the ‘70s and ‘80s. He wasn’t born then.”
Gavaskar stretched it too far by saying people think cricket started only in the 2000s, although India won overseas in the 70s and 80s and drew on foreign land, adding that they lost just as other teams did.
Gavaskar could have laughed it off with a tongue-in-cheek quip instead of the angry response to a harmless observation by the captain. The former skipper is right. The Indians have done well under the late Ajit Wadekar to win series in West Indies and England. Under Gavaskar and Kapil Dev, the team had good results in Australia and England.
Each era had its great players and to compare them is not proper. If the teams of 70s or 80s had great batsmen and the world’s best spinners, Ganguly’s team had equally classy batsmen and penetrative bowlers to win overseas.
The same teams under Ganguly and MS Dhoni got badly beaten, too, just as Gavaskar’s contemporary sides. The only difference is Kohli’s team has not played a Test series against Pakistan whereas Gavaskar’s teams had mixed results, winning in their own backyards.
Cricket statistics are never static, they are situational!
(The writer is a veteran commentator. Views expressed are personal. He can be reached at sveturi@gmail.com)